"VENGEANCE IS MINE, SAYS THE LORD GOD" (ROMANS 12:19; JAMES 1:20)

The subject of revenge figures prominently in the Bible in the form of concrete examples as well as teachings on the subjects. “Vengeance” and related words appear over fifty times. But most of the actual teachings can be summarized in the short principle first enumerated clearly in Deuteronomy 32:35: “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord God.” Paul later quotes these words in Romans 12:19, prefacing them with the comment: “Beloved, never seek revenge yourself, but leave room for God's wrath.”

But the related NT passage on which I would like to concentrate is James 1:20, which states that “your anger does not produce God's righteousness.” (NRSV) This may give us a clue as to why God forbids personal vengeance. And, in fact, several possible motives have been detected in this verse:

Reason #1: “Human anger does not produce the proper moral disposition or behavior within humans.” (C.C. Newman) Tasker expresses it this way, “Men who are wrathful do not practice that kind of conduct which alone is right in God's sight.” And L.T. Johnson gives this as one of two possible meanings for James 1:20 – “Human anger is not acceptable before God the righteous judge.”

And we could go to even more familiar NT passages to demonstrate the intended behavior a Christian should demonstrate towards all people, even those who wrong us: “Return good for evil,” Love your enemies,” and “Turn the other cheek.”

The above authors generalize James' teaching to all mankind, not just his immediate audience. Thus, Scot McKnight prefers the translation “human anger” to NRSV's “your anger.” McKnight also elaborates on what this particular type of behavior entails: “The 'anger' James has in mind is not the routine displays of frustration that attend human life but the violent anger that disrupts communities and leads to physical violence.” After all, it is possible to be angry without sinning (see Ephesians 4:26).

Somewhat in contrast, Davids restricts the definition of “anger” to refer only to one Christian's anger against another. But he agrees that “the human outburst of anger does not produce the type of righteousness which reflects God's standard.” Adamson appears to agree with this view at least partially when he states that righteousness “depicts the Christian life under the scrutiny and standards of God. A man's animosity toward his fellows does not create that kind of life.”

Reason #2: Tasker states that “the wrath of man prevents God's righteous actions from being vindicated by the Christian; for it becomes more difficult for others to lay hold of the truth that the judge of all the earth is essentially moral and Himself does what is right, if His servants fail to show righteousness in their conduct.” Somewhat similarly, Kistemaker states, “Anger hinders the prayers of a believer and thus prevents him from promoting the cause of Christ. In effect, he has given 'the devil a foothold.'”

Reason #3 is expressed somewhat more ambiguously by two commentators. Thus, Newman says that “human anger does not bring into being the state of affairs that God desires;” and Johnson states, “Human anger is not a legitimate instrument for effecting those right relationships God desires for creatures.” This last reason may actually hold out hope for eventual reconciliation between the one wronged and the one doing the wronging, and may possibly lead to the latter's repentance and salvation.

In a way, these three reasons for not pursuing vengeance are equivalent to the old rabbinical saying regarding the practice of slanderous gossip. It is said to kill three people: the person who speaks it (Reason #1), the person who hears it (Reason #2), and the person about whom it is told (Reason #3). In the same way, anger leading to vengeful action spiritually harms the one who does it, those who hear about that action and associate it with Christian beliefs, and the one receiving the vengeance who is not only physically harmed but perhaps eternally damned from not having the proper time to repent of his original harmful action and atoning for it.

Illustrations of some of these principles are found in notable Old Testament examples of vengeance. Three of these cases involve retribution for rape:

Genesis 34: Dinah's brothers Simeon and Levi take revenge against her rape by Shechem by tricking his whole tribe into getting circumcised and then slaughtering them all when they are incapacitated. This demonstrates how easy it is for vengeance to grow in scope until whole groups of people are involved. This was one of the main reasons for the OT command of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” It limited retribution so that warfare would not easily erupt between tribes.

In this particular example, the brothers' actions affected Dinah and Shechem since there is every indication that they were mutually in love. In addition, Simeon and Levi were adversely affected in that they lost the status of first born and were cursed by Jacob instead of being blessed (Genesis 49:6-7).

Judges 19-20 is the second rape story in this series. An unnamed Levite is spending overnight in a Benjamite village when a mob of townsmen seek to rape him. Instead, the owner of the house throws the Levite's concubine out to them, and they abuse her until she dies the next morning. Up to this point, the Levite had not shown any particular concern for her welfare, but now he rises in righteous indignation. He callously cuts her body into twelve pieces, sending them throughout Israel with the demand for retribution. Things rapidly get out of hand, and this wish for personal vengeance almost leads to the whole tribe of Benjamin being demolished. Obviously, everyone involved totally ignored the “eye for an eye” command.

II Samuel 13: Absalom is just as devious in taking revenge on Amnon, who raped Tamar, his half-sister and Absalom's full sister. And he waits even longer (two years) to get his vengeance by trickery and cold-blooded violence. As a result, Absalom also loses his status before his father David and is exiled away from Jerusalem for years. But then Absalom swears revenge on David and all his followers and eventually stages an almost successful coup which threatens to split Israel in two.

And Absalom's original act of vengeance sent even more ripples of violence out into the world. For one thing, even though Joab was the one instrumental in getting Absalom brought back from exile, Absalom demands more and sets Joab's field on fire just to get his attention (II Samuel 14). Joab will not forget that act and eventually gets even by stabbing Absalom to death against David's express orders (II Samuel 18).

Another consequence of Absalom's revolt happens when David is fleeing Jerusalem. A relative of David named Shimei curses David, but David refuses to retaliate since he feels that Shimei may actually be speaking God's words of deserved rebuke on him (II Samuel 16). However, that does not stop David from taking belated vengeance on Shimei by telling Solomon to kill him instead (I Kings 2:8-9). But Solomon proves to be more merciful than his father and commutes Shimei's sentence to a form of house arrest instead. It is only when Shimei violates the terms of his exile that he is duly executed.

Also while on his deathbed, David asks Solomon to kill the henchman who has done all his dirty work for him, Joab, because Joab had killed two men, Abner and Amasa, in an act of personal retaliation. And so Joab gets his delayed judgment after all (I Kings 2:28-35). David's actions right before dying reveal the justice of God's judgment on him also in preventing him from building the temple since he was a man of blood.

Book of Esther: This whole narrative revolves around the motive and motif of revenge. Haman takes umbrage when Mordecai refuses to honor him, and so he resolves to wipe out all the Jews in the land. But when his plot is revealed, it is Haman and his family who suffer death instead. But the story behind the animosity actually began years earlier when God commanded Saul to kill all the Agagites. Saul refused to comply (I Samuel 15:8), and it turns out that the result was the existence of Haman, a descendant of Agag. This proves the wisdom in God's command even though it may have seemed harsh at the time – God could foretell what would happen generations later and wanted to avoid it.

But some people have trouble with the aftermath of the above events in Esther since Mordecai gets the king to write a decree allowing the Jews to seek vengeance on all their enemies on the day that the Jews were slated to be killed, and even gets the vengeance decree extended to the following day also. The actual interpretation of the events centers around whether the Jews were just practicing self-defense (Esther 8:11 – NRSV) or vengeance (Esther 8:13 – NRSV).

Getting back to the Patriarchs, the whole Jacob Cycle in Genesis demonstrates the wisdom behind God's righteous justice as opposed to man's vengeance. After Jacob had robbed Esau of the father's birthright, Esau swore revenge on Jacob once Isaac was dead (Genesis 27:41), but Jacob fled to another country. From that point on, it was Jacob who suffered a 25-year exile away from his parents and in servitude to Laban. In addition, what could have been eventually a wonderful reunion between the two brothers is spoiled since Jacob is still suffering from guilt enough to be afraid of Esau. Esau, in the meanwhile, shows every sign of having totally forgiven Jacob. (Genesis 32-33) This supposition is confirmed at the last time the two brothers are together, at the death of their father Isaac (Genesis 35:29).

This same basic story is unfortunately played out again in the following generation when a rather egotistical and young Joseph lords it over his brothers. The brothers decide to kill him in revenge, but by God's providence Joseph is saved and spends years away from his family in servitude and prison. Through these many years, Joseph totally forgives his brothers, who, however, are still racked with guilt over their actions. When Joseph tests them to see if they have changed, he is pleased to see that they have obviously repented. But even after a touching reunion with them, it turns out that they are still convinced that Joseph will seek vengeance as soon as Jacob is dead (Genesis 50:15-21). Joseph's reply to their concerns is “Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God?” Note that this is the very same idea expressed later in Deuteronomy 32:35.

In these similar inter-generational tales of delayed vengeance, the wisdom of God's righteous judgment over our human vengeance is clearly seen. In both stories, the fact that no vengeance was carried out on the guilty parties allowed years in which (1) the original guilty persons could meditate on and repent of their actions, and (1) the wronged party could reflect on how his own actions had also been less than perfect and learn to forgive those who had wronged them.

There are two well-known sayings that illustrate the extremes of the human understanding of justice, both of which fall far short of God's righteous judgment:

“Justice delayed is justice denied.” 

This saying stems from an 1868 speech by the British Prime Minister William E. Gladstone. The danger to this attitude is that it can all too easily lead to a rush to judgment which may be no more than a glorified lynching. And if “justice” is defined as the death penalty, then there should be no doubt whatsoever as to guilt as well as enough time given for repentance.

“Revenge is a dish best served cold.”

This appears first in an 1846 novel by French author Eugene Sue, but it is found in italics indicating that he was probably a popular saying of the time. However, Spock tells Kirk in “The Wrath of Khan” that it is a Klingon proverb, so that probably predates the French. This rather cynical saying pictures the relish that comes from carefully plotting your revenge and attacking your enemy when he least expects it. It is hard to see how these actions or attitudes reflect God's righteousness in any way.